Live data from Hacker News

Languages: Why we must save dying tongues (2014)

bbc.com

71–80 of 255 posts

Re: Languages: Why we must save dying tongues (2014)

#71
post #65
post #5

It's not a well-liked view, but I'm very glad that humanity is on the path to speaking only a few languages (or perhaps just one). If you disagree, consider this thought experiment: Imagine if the entire world spoke a single language. Would we ever want to invent new languages, making mutual communication harder? It would be silly. I do feel for the speakers of these dying tongues, but in the long run, this is a good…

We actually do want to invent new languages now - consider Game of Thrones, Star Trek, LOTR etc. In a monolingual world, would any of these have real adherents? Maybe. Even within English, various groups have invented sublanguages - Cockney rhyming slang or Polari https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polari

The idea of "foreignness" implicitly carries with it the notion of approaching ideas and the universe in which we live in a way that isn't the same as ours. So we invent new languages to represent that.

Almost as if that's the point, yeah?

Re: Languages: Why we must save dying tongues (2014)

#72

  "What’s more, languages are conduits of human heritage. Writing is a relatively recent development in our history (written systems currently exist for only about one-third of the world’s languages), so language itself is often the only way to convey a community’s songs, stories and poems. The Iliad was an oral story before it was written, as was The Odyssey. “How many other traditions are out there in the world that we’ll never know about because no-one recorded them before the language disappeared?” Austin says. ""
The Illiad is doing just fine in the many different languages it has been translated into. Preserving languages as living, spoken tongues is not necessary for the mere preservation of stories and history.

  "Without the language, the culture itself might teeter, or even disappear. “If we are to survive, to continue on and to exist as a people with a distinct and unique culture,” he continues, “then we have to have a language.” “It’s very hard as an English speaker to understand that,” "
This is true. English is now so widely used that it isn't really associated with one particular culture. You can travel to a completely alien country that speaks English, just differently than you.

  “Different languages provide distinct pathways of thought and frameworks for thinking and solving problems,” Harrison says. Returning to Cherokee, unlike English it is verb rather than noun-based, and those verbs can be conjugated in a multitude of ways based on who they are acting upon."
Many languages have unique attributes that let them excel at certain things. German, for example, is fantastic for creating compound words (e.g. Gedankenexperiment). English, however, gleefully swallows up such words and incorporates them.

  "There are also a few examples of languages being revived even after actually going extinct. By the 1960s, the last fluent Miami language speakers living in the American Midwest passed away. Thanks largely to the efforts of one interested member of the Miami Nation tribe, however, the language is now taught at Miami University in Ohio. "
Another example of this is written Mayan. The first archbishop of Yucatan, Diego de Landa, deliberately wiped out every trace of written Mayan he could. Paper codices were burned. Stone monuments were defaced. Literate Mayans were executed. He was so successful that, by the 20th century, written Mayan was a complete mystery. It has since been deciphered, but outside of a very small number of paper codices, all that remains are stone monuments. This is unfortunate. Consider the writing on monuments in Washington as compared to what's in the Library of Congress.

As useful as different languages may be for different things, they're also distressingly good at preventing us from communicating with and understanding each other. Perhaps the rise of more global languages is worth paying the price of losing some of our lingual diversity.

Re: Languages: Why we must save dying tongues (2014)

#73
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

German, however, has schadenfreude, gestalt, eigenvalue, angst, weltschmerz and poltergeist ;)

English had all of these, exactly. Every child knows poltergeist, from Harry Potter. Every teenager knows angst. The others are less universal, but I'd expect a university graduate to know them.

Where exactly do you think those words come from?

Re: Languages: Why we must save dying tongues (2014)

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, of course we would invent new languages. We do this continually. In any big language there are many different dialects. This is a way to signal group identity. Over time they become new languages. Latin becomes French, Spanish, Romanian, etc. If you disagree why do you not speak your English with a (choose those that don't apply:) English / southern / Indian / Scottish / Irish / South African / Jamaican / New En…

This is still somewhat historical. Latin becoming French, Spanish, Romanian, and all accents are all a product of geography. France, Spain, Romania, etc. It's not group entity, it's location identity. But the generations aren't separated by geography anymore. Well there may well be intellectual advantages for multilingualism, different unilingualism typically just leads to conflict.

Divergement of languages, dialects and accent are affected by different groupings, one of which is geographical grouping. Boiling it down to geography alone is a blind oversimplification, even in the historical context.

Re: Languages: Why we must save dying tongues (2014)

#75
post #64
post #5

It's not a well-liked view, but I'm very glad that humanity is on the path to speaking only a few languages (or perhaps just one). If you disagree, consider this thought experiment: Imagine if the entire world spoke a single language. Would we ever want to invent new languages, making mutual communication harder? It would be silly. I do feel for the speakers of these dying tongues, but in the long run, this is a good…

I believe that this is one of the best things that TV has given us - the homogenization, and adoption of the English language. It eases communication and trade across cultures. It also makes it cheaper to recruit people from all around the world with a given skill. Right now, there's a shortage in skilled welders. There's a massive number of skilled welders in Asia that make bit less money than the welders here do. W…

Agree there are huge advantages to us all agreeing on standards (English as language of business, metric system, etc). But from that doesn't follow that we all need to be monolingual.

Re: Languages: Why we must save dying tongues (2014)

#76
post #64
post #5

It's not a well-liked view, but I'm very glad that humanity is on the path to speaking only a few languages (or perhaps just one). If you disagree, consider this thought experiment: Imagine if the entire world spoke a single language. Would we ever want to invent new languages, making mutual communication harder? It would be silly. I do feel for the speakers of these dying tongues, but in the long run, this is a good…

I believe that this is one of the best things that TV has given us - the homogenization, and adoption of the English language. It eases communication and trade across cultures. It also makes it cheaper to recruit people from all around the world with a given skill. Right now, there's a shortage in skilled welders. There's a massive number of skilled welders in Asia that make bit less money than the welders here do. W…

The homogenization and stabilization of language started with the printing press.

Radio, and then TV, started homogenization of pronunciation.

Re: Languages: Why we must save dying tongues (2014)

#77
post #14
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you willing to stop speaking, reading, thinking, writing in English and use Mandarin? And what about the fact that some concepts and words are enunciated more succintly or clearly in different languages? I mean, you have the perfect example in front of you: why are there so many programming languages? Could it be that some language constructs are more difficult in one language vs the other? Why invent new program…

The reason we have lots of programming languages is because: 1. They're not that different. Once you've learned a few, picking up new ones is pretty easy. 2. They're much easier to learn than human languages. To answer your first question: I probably wouldn't stop using english myself, but I don't think I'd teach it to my children.

They're not that different. Once you've learned a few, picking up new ones is pretty easy.

Only if you stay in the same family. Going from C to C++, Java, or C# is pretty easy. Try going from C to Haskell or Clojure or Erlang.

You can play the same game with natural languages. It's easy to go between French, Italian, and Spanish. Try going from Icelandic to Mandarin.

Re: Languages: Why we must save dying tongues (2014)

#79
Would any of you make your children monolingual [0] speakers of your national language? Wouldn't you feel like you're doing them a disservice?

[0] monolingual in the sense that the national language would strictly be their native language spoken at school/education, with friends and family even if they'd still be learning English

Re: Languages: Why we must save dying tongues (2014)

#80
post #5

It's not a well-liked view, but I'm very glad that humanity is on the path to speaking only a few languages (or perhaps just one). If you disagree, consider this thought experiment: Imagine if the entire world spoke a single language. Would we ever want to invent new languages, making mutual communication harder? It would be silly. I do feel for the speakers of these dying tongues, but in the long run, this is a good…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN